Federal judge temporarily halts Tennessee's 'drag ban' law on free speech grounds

[YorkieGal]

I appreciate the honesty. It isn't about anything in particular other than a vague feeling it is icky. Got it.

That's a terrific reason for people to not bring their own kids to it.

Unfortunately, though, a terrible reason for trying to ban it for other people. Which is probably why we get pages of pages of nonsensical made up reasons rather than the truth.

Minimizing and pretending their isn't a reason is boring. I dont entertain it.

 

[KCfromNC]

Minimizing and pretending their isn't a reason is boring. I dont entertain it.

That's nice, but my post was discussing the specific reason given in a previous post.

I'm sure it is very very important to the people whose feelings were represented in that post, and I fully support them not participating in things they disagree with.

But a random strong feeling from a small minority of people isn't a valid reason to erase the 1st amendment.

 

[YorkieGal]

That's nice, but my post was discussing the specific reason given in a previous post.

I'm sure it is very very important to the people whose feelings were represented in that post, and I fully support them not participating in things they disagree with.

But a random strong feeling from a small minority of people isn't a valid reason to erase the 1st amendment.

I don't agree it's a 1st amendment issue and I don't care what the courts say about it, either. It's a sickness on society which many know and which is why it keeps getting brought before the courts.

Federal judge temporarily halts Tennessee's 'drag ban' law

The law, which criminalizes some drag performances, was set to take effect Saturday.

www.nbcnews.com

Supporters say the law safeguards children against exposure to inappropriate entertainment.

One of the bill’s Republican lead sponsors, Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, said when it passed that the measure "gives confidence to parents that they can take their kids to a public or private show and will not be blindsided by a sexualized performance."

The above is what I agree with and happy to see that there are some decent people in politics fighting this degeneracy on the correct grounds. If a group of people (or even an individual) knew that they were upsetting others, for the above reason, they would have respect and honor their views but do the opposite instead.......hm, wonder why?

We'll see how 'the day in court' goes, shortly. Either way, it doesn't change my view and many others and we will protect our children.

 

[Bradskii]

You know what would be great? If having one of these questions answered means that someone would actually admit "hey, you're right, my objection was legitimate but now that it has been answered, I'm OK with the situation". But we never seem to read that. Instead, it's throw out one anti-factual objection, then when that is corrected, jump on to the next one. Almost as if these posts are hiding the real reasons for the opinions expressed in them.

Makes it hard to take any of them all that seriously.

You're right. That hardly ever happens. I'll stand up for my opinions until the cows come home. But if someone corrects something which I thought was a fact then I will gladly correct myself. There'll be a 'My bad...thanks for pointing that out'. And I'll obviously have to take the new info into account in some way.

What do we get normally? The correction is completely ignored and another obscure point is brought up. 'Hey, that didn't stick to the wall, but let's just keep throwing anything and everything it it'.

And here's something for nothing, keep pushing the correction, keep asking the for person to please accept what is being said, to acknowledge the facts being presented and you will be reported for goading.

 

[Bradskii]

Either way, it doesn't change my view and many others and we will protect our children.

And out seniors. Don't forget about the seniors being corrupted.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't agree it's a 1st amendment issue and I don't care what the courts say about it, either.

If posts are simply going to assert nonsense and ignore any discussion, reason or facts to the contrary, there doesn't seem to be a point in me continuing to waste my time.

 

[KCfromNC]

And out seniors. Don't forget about the seniors being corrupted.

How could you have forgotten Santa Claus? He seems to be central to this whole thing.

 

[YorkieGal]

If posts are simply going to assert nonsense and ignore any discussion, reason or facts to the contrary, there doesn't seem to be a point in me continuing to waste my time.

If you only want people to agree with you, then yeah, you probably are wasting your time.

EDIT: I don't mean the above to be rude. Anyone who tries to convince me that this is okay for kids is wasting their and my time. This is a point which can never be agreed. I say that with respect and humility and appreciate the effort you've put into the discussion, anyway.

 

[Bradskii]

If you only want people to agree with you, then yeah, you probably are wasting your time.

Then let's make it a discussion.

What's your position on these so called drag actors keeping seniors and the desperately ill at hospitals entertained? Are these acts somehow sexually degenerate?

 

[YorkieGal]

Then let's make it a discussion.

What's your position on these so called drag actors keeping seniors and the desperately ill at hospitals entertained? Are these acts somehow sexually degenerate?

Yes; according to my religious beliefs.

As far as the world, if they are doing what they want as consenting adults, I don't care.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes; according to my religious beliefs.

So you think there is degenerate sexual behaviour taking place in old peoples homes and hospitals, yet all the carers, the med staff, the old people themselves, those that run the facilities for these people, hospital authorities, the families of these people being entertained - they all have no problem with it. So in your opinion, you are right. And all these other people, with various beliefs, various political affiliations...they are all wrong.

So be it.

But do you think that any reasonable person, trying to determine who is right, would take your side? Because you claim some religious authority on the matter? Because that's all you are offering. Do you think that that is enough to persuade people who are trying to look at it objectively?

 

[YorkieGal]

So you think there is degenerate sexual behaviour taking place in old peoples homes and hospitals, yet all the carers, the med staff, the old people themselves, those that run the facilities for these people, hospital authorities, the families of these people being entertained - they all have no problem with it. So in your opinion, you are right. And all these other people, with various beliefs, various political affiliations...they are all wrong.

So be it.

But do you think that any reasonable person, trying to determine who is right, would take your side? Because you claim some religious authority on the matter? Because that's all you are offering. Do you think that that is enough to persuade people who are trying to look at it objectively?

Yes, people (including myself) are wrong, in the eyes of God, when they sin. That's no secret regarding Christianity, is it?

As far as what people think regarding right or wrong etc in society, I don't care if anyone is on my side. I'm on the side of the kids.

Hope that clarifies.

 

[rambot]

If anti-dqsh folks want their position (that it harms children) to be taken seriously they need to provide seriously convincing evidence of its harm.

And that never ever EVER ever happens.

These discussions are always so generous towards their opinion because they are never asked to prove their main argument to begin with.

 

[Bradskii]

As far as what people think regarding right or wrong etc in society, I don't care if anyone is on my side. I'm on the side of the kids.

Hope that clarifies.

No, it doesn't. Because by that you imply that you are against the rights of the parents of the children who attend these functions. Who, also by implication, are not on the side of the kids. And either are intentionally exposing them to dangerous sexual predators or are too dumb to realise it.

 

[YorkieGal]

If anti-dqsh folks want their position (that it harms children) to be taken seriously they need to provide seriously convincing evidence of its harm.

And that never ever EVER ever happens.

These discussions are always so generous towards their opinion because they are never asked to prove their main argument to begin with.

Everyone has the internet and I won't copy and paste it for a discussion forum. There is concerning stuff out there to validate my view and there are articles which refute these and which would support your view, I'm sure. As I said, I don't require external validation regarding morals and ethics but the information is out there for those that do.

If you seek someone who will provide you a news article, then I'm definitely the wrong person to talk to but maybe someone else will come along and engage in this way with you.

FWIW, I'm a kid of the 90s/2000s and we are very much a 'live and let live' generation, as far as adults go.

However, I would object to kids being exposed to many types of people and places but if it suits you to think it's only on the basis of transexuals and drag queens, that's up to you, and appreciate that stays on topic, as well.

 

[YorkieGal]

No, it doesn't. Because by that you imply that you are against the rights of the parents of the children who attend these functions. Who, also by implication, are not on the side of the kids. And either are intentionally exposing them to dangerous sexual predators or are too dumb to realise it.

Absolutely against the parents who condone this and would agree they are not on the side of the kids. Yes, I think you understand perfectly.

 

[Bradskii]

Absolutely against the parents who condone this and would agree they are not on the side of the kids. Yes, I think you understand perfectly.

How is it that you can say that you know better than hundreds, if not thousands of parents who only want the best for their kids, that you know better then they do as to how they raise their children.

As a general question, who do you really think is best qualified to determine what kids can see? You or their parents?

 

[YorkieGal]

How is it that you can say that you know better than hundreds, if not thousands of parents who only want the best for their kids, that you know better then they do as to how they raise their children.

As a general question, who do you really think is best qualified to determine what kids can see? You or their parents?

Many parents make mistakes or intentionally subject their children to inappropriate people or places. Many would have better judgment than these people. I could ask you how you think that is not the case, but I don't really care because it would be a circular discussion and, as such, unproductive.

Re: your general question, see answer above.

 

[rambot]

Everyone has the internet and I won't copy and paste it for a discussion forum. There is concerning stuff out there to validate my view and there are articles which refute these and which would support your view, I'm sure. As I said, I don't require external validation regarding morals and ethics but the information is out there for those that do.

If you seek someone who will provide you a news article, then I'm definitely the wrong person to talk to but maybe someone else will come along and engage in this way with you.

FWIW, I'm a kid of the 90s/2000s and we are very much a 'live and let live' generation, as far as adults go.

However, I would object to kids being exposed to many types of people and places but if it suits you to think it's only on the basis of transexuals and drag queens, that's up to you, and appreciate that stays on topic, as well.

1. There is not sufficient evidence of any systemic problems. There are a handful of decontexualized incidents that could be concerning but there is 0 evidence that attending dqsh is as PHYSICALLY dangerous for kids as attending church youth group.
Your argument runs adjacent to "I dont need evidence for my opinions"

To be clear though, the lack of evidence is not a "you" (or me) problem to solve. It's that there is a lack of good evidence because the position is fundamentally flawed


2. You can object to YOUR kids seeing dqsh. That dies not give you the right to stop other people from attending dqsh.

 

[YorkieGal]

1. There is not sufficient evidence of any systemic problems. There are a handful of decontexualized incidents that could be concerning but there is 0 evidence that attending dqsh is as PHYSICALLY dangerous for kids as attending church youth group.
Your argument runs adjacent to "I dont need evidence for my opinions"


2. You can object to YOUR kids seeing dqsh. That dies not give you the right to stop other people from attending dqsh.

1. Your opinion and I disagree but that's fine - it's okay to agree to disagree
2. see above